The Fight for Trans Rights in the Military
Even after Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, gender identity remains unprotected for U.S. armed forces
By Molly Knefel
August 26, 2013 12:45 PM ET
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fight-for-trans-rights-in-the-military-20130826 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fight-for-trans-rights-in-the-military-20130826)
Chelsea Manning, the military whistleblower sentenced last week to 35 years in prison for leaking classified military documents to WikiLeaks, came out as transgender the day after sentencing, announcing that she is female and hopes to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. For many in the trans* community, Manning's announcement was not a revelation but a confirmation of her identity. Though Manning's story is an exceptional one, as a soldier and a prisoner she stands at the intersection of several discriminatory policies that affect thousands of trans* people throughout the United States. In a statement released on August 22nd, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that denying Manning access to hormone therapy – considered medically necessary care for the treatment of gender dysphoria – could be a violation of her Eighth Amendment rights protecting her from cruel and unusual punishment. As trans* identity remains unprotected in the military, however, thousands of trans* service members are, in fact, denied the right to seek medical care and live as their true selves.
"Trans* people are typically released from the military through medical discharge," says Masen Davis, executive director of the Transgender Law Center. "That means the trans* service members who are serving are doing so quietly." A study recently conducted by the LGBTQ Policy Journal at Harvard's Kennedy School for Government found that 20 percent of the trans* people surveyed had served in the military – twice the rate of the rest of the population. The same study found that trans* service members were even more likely than their civilian counterparts to experience employment and housing discrimination and be denied medical treatment. While the successful repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) means sexual orientation is now protected, gender identity is not. And although gender dysphoria is considered a medical disqualification, discharges may be classified as "administrative," potentially limiting troops' future access to VA healthcare.
I hope I'm not out of line here, but I want to clear up an inaccuracy in the article. Unauthorized public release of classified information is not the same thing as whistleblowing. One is illegal, the other is protected.
Quote from: kabit on August 26, 2013, 09:21:32 PM
I hope I'm not out of line here, but I want to clear up an inaccuracy in the article. Unauthorized public release of classified information is not the same thing as whistleblowing. One is illegal, the other is protected.
Unless said classified documents contained information of illegal practices being committed.
Torture for example.
The information still needs to be released to an approved federal agency... the internet does not qualify.
And beyond going through the proper channels, being selective in what you release would also be appropriate as well. There is no way she critically analyzed and considered the ramifications of every document she leaked, and she is incredibly lucky that she did not put a lot of her fellow service members in danger.
Her situation aside, I am very torn on the military issue. On one hand, I am super bitter that I am getting discharged because I got diagnosed with GID. I know I was good at my job and I said I wanted to wait a couple years before considering transitioning in order to finish my time. The fact that they don't think I can continue to do a good job because of this offends me. On the other hand, I know that repressing it for a couple years would go against the recommendations of any medical person educated on the subject and I do not think transitioning while active duty would be feasible. I worked on a submarine, and while it is a separate debate, I do not think women should be on subs. Not because they're not capable, but after experiencing the constraints of sub life, it would be a logistics nightmare. Sub life aside, while I have not experienced HRT yet, I think it would be hard for starting HRT and maintaining physical readiness to coexist. The smallest of medical issues can put someone on a med hold, so I don't see the drastic physical changes jiving with their standards. However, it does seem like they're are getting ready to figure out how to better handle the issue, so I don't think it will be long before things are better.
Discriminating against transgender servicemembers, veterans, and those trans individuals who want to serve is wrong. It's just straight-up wrong.
If the process of transition, or the lack of progress in transition, renders an individual incapable of serving, there can be discussions about what to do about that. But a blanket ban is wrong. The ban in place is based on a mix of bigotry and outdated ideas in psychology, and, since it's not based on law, the President ought to be eliminating it immediately. I'm very fond of the President - the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell was enough to get my long-term loyalty, the Affordable Care Act has made my life better, and he's been wonderful on a lot of other issues - but that he hasn't acted on this is a black mark on his record.
I seriously doubt the Draft will ever be reinstated, the cost would be prohibitive.
While I was not happy I got drafted during the Vietnam war, I don't think the draft ever should have been stopped. An all volunteer military is a nice idea, it really doesn't serve the nation.
The Manning case of leaking classified information shouldn't even have been brought up when concerning trans rights in the military. At least in my opinion "she" is not the spokesperson I want leading the right for us in the military. It puts a dark cloud over the whole thing and gives the people fighting against it more leverage.
I don't know...... This article confirms though that I just gotta wait till my term of service is over unless something changes to where the military will help me transition which I highly doubt will ever happen.
I wouldn't worry about the draft. We don't need much manpower/boots on the ground nowadays .due to having better computer tech as compared with Vietnam. Also, if we go into Syria, we'd likely have help from France and other nations.
So Jasriella you will think is is ok for the military to force a young person to first to military and then to de-transition? What are you really standing for? Pentagon? Neoconservatives?
Come on, young men are not dying in Boot Camp because of hazing. Enough of the exaggerations.
I survived basic training in the Vietnam era and so did everyone else at our post.
Libertarian thank you. I wasn't implying anything towards the brewing conflict with Syria my post was directed to the OP.
And everyone survived boot camp when I went through infantry school and only one person didn't graduate on time and that was because of a broken ankle.
Please be careful where you take this thread, it is bordering on being closed.
I'm finding it really hypocritical now that I think of it. The military will treat depression, supply medication, and keep you in service. But if you're trans? A good soldier, like able, hard worker? Nope get out. Damn and I thought I had hope in my unit, might as well just play it safe like I said earlier and wait.
First, Syria will not lead the renewal of the draft. Likely, air strikes will be the first step if they go that route. Also, it will have the backing of European nations if it comes to that. Lastly, whether one wants a war or not, the fact is there are plenty of civilians dying in Syria at the moment. It's complex and there really isn't a clear cut choice on what to do. This isn't your average issue about the military being overzealous; although, I would agree that has been the case many times in the past. I haven't made my decision on the matter as I am a pacifist at heart and think war sometimes only makes more problems, but I hate to see civilians getting killed by chemical warfare and no action being taking to prevent these atrocities. Personally, I wish cowards like Putin, Ayatollah Khamenei and the entire politburo of the PRC would stand up and put some diplomatic pressure on Assad. Koffi Annan's plan could have worked if they didn't help bolster the Syrian regimes position and make him adamant about rejecting negotiations. Maybe then we wouldn't have this mess.
As for the topic of this thread, I don't get why the military won't allow soldiers to have necessary treatments. I suppose they may worry about the effects of the drugs on physical performance or perhaps emotional changes. I really don't know. To be honest, I don't think they have a valid reason other traditionalism.
One thing I am curious about, why would someone who is trans and plans on transitioning enter the military at that time? I understand there are some people who go into and find out in the midst of things they are trans. But why would someone who plans on transitioning sign up for it if they know it will be a roadblock? I don't mean that as an offensive question. I'm actually curious to learn because I have met so many transgender service members since I have been on here and would like to learn about their experience.
Quote from: learningtolive on August 29, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
One thing I am curious about, why would someone who is trans and plans on transitioning enter the military at that time? I understand there are some people who go into and find out in the midst of things they are trans. But why would someone who plans on transitioning sign up for it if they know it will be a roadblock? I don't mean that as an offensive question. I'm actually curious to learn because I have met so many transgender service members since I have been on here and would like to learn about their experience.
In my case it wasn't until very recently that I accepted it. While it wasn't the main reason I enlisted, one of the biggest benefits I saw was it forcing the girliness out of me. Obviously it didn't work.
It can also be the means to an end, to gather funds for trans care.
Quote from: learningtolive on August 29, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
As for the topic of this thread, I don't get why the military won't allow soldiers to have necessary treatments. I suppose they may worry about the effects of the drugs on physical performance or perhaps emotional changes. I really don't know. To be honest, I don't think they have a valid reason other traditionalism.
I can somewhat understand why the military doesn't want to accept or keep trans people. If a person discovers that they're trans and are properly diagnosed while enlisted/commissioned, then the military would be obligated to pay for the transitioning process to correct the "medical deficiency." That's a lot of money that in their opinion they shouldn't have to spend, and I partly agree on that extent.....partly. On top of that, the said soldier would essentially be combat incapable throughout the duration of their transition. I do apologize if this seems harsh but I don't want someone on mixed hormones with me on patrol when ->-bleeped-<- hits the fan. I need to know exactly what my teammates are going to do and how we're going to react and the mixture of hormones from HRT makes that scenario unpredictable.
I can understand the military's reasons for not wanting to sanction treatments and procedures while in service, what I don't understand is why the military won't allow a person to be trans and simply do their job and service and have them wait till their contract is up if they're found out. I've been doing it for 4 years and have another 5 ahead of me and there hasn't been a single problem, but I guess I don't count. After all I knew full well that by enlisting into the U.S. Military that all I would be to the top brass was a number and warm body.
Quote from: learningtolive on August 29, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
One thing I am curious about, why would someone who is trans and plans on transitioning enter the military at that time? I understand there are some people who go into and find out in the midst of things they are trans. But why would someone who plans on transitioning sign up for it if they know it will be a roadblock? I don't mean that as an offensive question. I'm actually curious to learn because I have met so many transgender service members since I have been on here and would like to learn about their experience.
When I enlisted, I didn't know there was all this information, all this help freely offered, and most importantly I didn't know a guy could really become a girl in almost every physical aspect except for reproduction. I've had many many nights of crying myself to sleep thinking to myself how stupid could I be? I could in all honesty, if I knew then what I know now, very well be post op by now.
Nobody in their right mind "plans" on transitioning after they enlist in the service. Usually they're coaxed into it with enlistment bonuses and false promises. I knew what I wanted when I went to enlist and I settled for no less than just that, unfortunately I learned the hard way that after you finish boot camp you go wherever they want you to go regardless of what you enlisted for. I was going to be an infantryman and finished infantry school only to be told that I'm not going with my company to the unit I have 3 options, National Guard, Reserve, or get out, so I picked National Guard and became an Army Welder instead.
Reminder, please stay on original topic!
All off topic posts will be deleted! :police:
News Admin
If anybody has the initiative and time, the military is asking for research and studies on this and I guess there's a hefty paycheck too if you do it good enough.
Palm Center Transgender Military Service Initiative: Call For Proposals
http://www.palmcenter.org/call_proposals_2013
Quote from: Jasriella on August 29, 2013, 10:44:58 PM
I can somewhat understand why the military doesn't want to accept or keep trans people. If a person discovers that they're trans and are properly diagnosed while enlisted/commissioned, then the military would be obligated to pay for the transitioning process to correct the "medical deficiency." That's a lot of money that in their opinion they shouldn't have to spend, and I partly agree on that extent.....partly. On top of that, the said soldier would essentially be combat incapable throughout the duration of their transition. I do apologize if this seems harsh but I don't want someone on mixed hormones with me on patrol when ->-bleeped-<- hits the fan. I need to know exactly what my teammates are going to do and how we're going to react and the mixture of hormones from HRT makes that scenario unpredictable.
I can understand the military's reasons for not wanting to sanction treatments and procedures while in service, what I don't understand is why the military won't allow a person to be trans and simply do their job and service and have them wait till their contract is up if they're found out. I've been doing it for 4 years and have another 5 ahead of me and there hasn't been a single problem, but I guess I don't count. After all I knew full well that by enlisting into the U.S. Military that all I would be to the top brass was a number and warm body.When I enlisted, I didn't know there was all this information, all this help freely offered, and most importantly I didn't know a guy could really become a girl in almost every physical aspect except for reproduction. I've had many many nights of crying myself to sleep thinking to myself how stupid could I be? I could in all honesty, if I knew then what I know now, very well be post op by now.
Nobody in their right mind "plans" on transitioning after they enlist in the service. Usually they're coaxed into it with enlistment bonuses and false promises. I knew what I wanted when I went to enlist and I settled for no less than just that, unfortunately I learned the hard way that after you finish boot camp you go wherever they want you to go regardless of what you enlisted for. I was going to be an infantryman and finished infantry school only to be told that I'm not going with my company to the unit I have 3 options, National Guard, Reserve, or get out, so I picked National Guard and became an Army Welder instead.
Quote from: skin on August 29, 2013, 06:34:41 PM
In my case it wasn't until very recently that I accepted it. While it wasn't the main reason I enlisted, one of the biggest benefits I saw was it forcing the girliness out of me. Obviously it didn't work.
Thanks for the feedback. I can understand the positions that you two are in. I guess I'm more or less confused by the few who state they want to transition, but then join the military. Of course, there is nothing wrong with doing that as there are benefits to being in the service. I just fail to understand those who plan to transition while they are in the service when they knew prior to joining that it wouldn't be an option. Again, nothing wrong about them serving, but it seems like an odd move when the army prohibits transitioning. Perhaps my assumption in it's entirety is false and everyone realizes they're trans or comes to accept it in the middle of their service which would be after the fact.
There are a couple of things that need to be considered. First of all, the US military has an extensive list of medical conditions that are considered "disqualifying" for enlistment or appointment, prior to service, and cause for being discharged if already in the service. These were developed for cis-persons, for the most part.
For instance, "Current absence of one or both testicles, either congenital or undescended is disqualifying."
Any endocrine or metabolic disorders that "prevent satisfactory performance of duty or require frequent or prolonged treatment are disqualifying."
A post-op (neo-vagina) on a transwoman would be operationally unacceptable, due to the requirement for frequent dilation. HRT is probably disqualifying, much in the same manner as insulin dependent diabetes.
I can see pre-op, pre-hrt, pre-everything persons serving - they do that now!! And they should not be unfairly discriminated against.
Read the lists ... http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/intmedstandards.htm
Quote from: Jamie D on August 30, 2013, 07:30:25 PM
There are a couple of things that need to be considered. First of all, the US military has an extensive list of medical conditions that are considered "disqualifying" for enlistment or appointment, prior to service, and cause for being discharged if already in the service. These were developed for cis-persons, for the most part.
For instance, "Current absence of one or both testicles, either congenital or undescended is disqualifying."
Any endocrine or metabolic disorders that "prevent satisfactory performance of duty or require frequent or prolonged treatment are disqualifying."
A post-op (neo-vagina) on a transwoman would be operationally unacceptable, due to the requirement for frequent dilation. HRT is probably disqualifying, much in the same manner as insulin dependent diabetes.
I can see pre-op, pre-hrt, pre-everything persons serving - they do that now!! And they should not be unfairly discriminated against.
Read the lists ... http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/intmedstandards.htm
It sounds like some of their standards are a bit much, in my opinion. I don't see why they would discriminate against a male for having one testicle. That sounds odd to me. How will that in anyway stand in the way of their performance? I've had surgery on my genitals for health reasons, and I'm now perfectly healthy and functional. I don't see why someone with one testicle wouldn't feel the same way as long as they fixed the underlining medical threat. Only accepting Pre-everything transgender individuals is still pretty discriminatory because it shuts the door for trans people who plan on transitioning. Whether or not they have medical concerns about soldiers being on hormones for health reasons, it is discriminatory. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for doing so, but I suspect most of it has to do with traditionalism and fear about troop morale/ team unity. However, I do acknowledge that I could be wrong on that because my view is based on an assumption.
What do you think would be the operational effectiveness of an insulin-dependent diabetic who can't get his or her insulin in a battlefield situation?
Or someone who has been on HRT and suddenly, or for a long time, can not get the hormones?
I think the regulations point toward having soldiers/sailors/airmen who are physically fit.
The purpose of DOD medical standards is to ensure that medically qualified personnel, accepted into the armed forces of the United States are:
(1) Free of contagious diseases that would likely endanger the health of other personnel.
(2) Free of medical conditions or physical defects that would require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization or would likely result in separation from the Army for medical unfitness.
(3) Medically capable of satisfactorily completing required training.
(4) Medically adaptable to the military environment without the necessity of geographical area limitations.
(5) Medically capable of performing duties without aggravation of existing physical defects or medical conditions.
It may be discriminatory, but it is legal, and it is necessary.
Quote from: Jamie D on August 30, 2013, 08:05:58 PM
What do you think would be the operational effectiveness of an insulin-dependent diabetic who can't get his or her insulin in a battlefield situation?
Or someone who has been on HRT and suddenly, or for a long time, can get the hormones?
I think the regulations point toward having soldiers/sailors/airmen who are physically fit.
The purpose of DOD medical standards is to ensure that medically qualified personnel, accepted into the armed forces of the United States are:
(1) Free of contagious diseases that would likely endanger the health of other personnel.
(2) Free of medical conditions or physical defects that would require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization or would likely result in separation from the Army for medical unfitness.
(3) Medically capable of satisfactorily completing required training.
(4) Medically adaptable to the military environment without the necessity of geographical area limitations.
(5) Medically capable of performing duties without aggravation of existing physical defects or medical conditions.
It may be discriminatory, but it is legal, and it is necessary.
Good point on the hrt. As I said, I never claimed it wasn't legal, but it is discriminatory nonetheless; however, sometimes discrimination is okay. It does make sense that the military wouldn't want to have to deal with those who required daily medications, but I still think there is more social stigma surrounding the issue than you are giving credit. Having said that, I can understand discrimination on the basis of safety of health concerns. If that's the reason which sounds appropriate to me, then I am fine with their decision in that aspect.
In the case of rejecting males with one testicle, I still maintain that is a pretty harsh standard. Many live completely healthy lives and don't require special medical attention. I don't see the medical or safety reason involved for why they would discriminate against them. I fail to see how that would impact their performance, but I was never in the military so what do I know.
I think the military's policy on medical issues might change sometime in the future, since more of the fighting will start taking place off of the battlefield and into a computer room. My brother-in-law is in the military, isn't in the greatest of shape, but never stepped foot on the battlefield. He's been in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places in the middle east, but did everything in the computer rooms. Why do these people need to be in tip-top shape, be abled bodied, etc.? It's only harming the military toexclude people with technical skills just because they're trans, has a medical condition, or disability. I definitely see why ground troops need to be healthy though.
Quote from: learningtolive on August 30, 2013, 08:17:48 PM
Good point on the hrt. As I said, I never claimed it wasn't legal, but it is discriminatory nonetheless; however, sometimes discrimination is okay. It does make sense that the military wouldn't want to have to deal with those who required daily medications, but I still think there is more social stigma surrounding the issue than you are giving credit. Having said that, I can understand discrimination on the basis of safety of health concerns. If that's the reason which sounds appropriate to me, then I am fine with their decision in that aspect.
In the case of rejecting males with one testicle, I still maintain that is a pretty harsh standard. Many live completely healthy lives and don't require special medical attention. I don't see the medical or safety reason involved for why they would discriminate against them. I fail to see how that would impact their performance, but I was never in the military so what do I know.
"History of penis amputation is disqualifying." Uh-oh
"History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as a change of sex, hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions is disqualifying."
"History of three or more episodes of heat exhaustion is disqualifying."
"Men: Height below 60 inches or over 80 inches is disqualifying. Women: Height below 58 inches or over 80 inches is disqualifying."
"Current nasal polyps or history of nasal polyps, unless greater than 12 months has elapsed since nasal polypectomy, is disqualifying."
"Current diseases of sebaceous glands to include severe acne, if extensive involvement of the neck, shoulders, chest, or back is present or would be aggravated by or interfere with the proper wearing of military equipment, are disqualifying . Applicants under treatment with system icretinoids, including, Accutane(r) are disqualified until 8 (eight) weeks after completion of therapy."
"Current orthodontic appliances for continued treatment are disqualifying."
Gosh, if braces on your teeth can keep you out, what chance does a transperson have?
Quote from: Jamie D on August 30, 2013, 09:04:48 PM
"History of penis amputation is disqualifying." Uh-oh
"History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as a change of sex, hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions is disqualifying."
"History of three or more episodes of heat exhaustion is disqualifying."
"Men: Height below 60 inches or over 80 inches is disqualifying. Women: Height below 58 inches or over 80 inches is disqualifying."
"Current nasal polyps or history of nasal polyps, unless greater than 12 months has elapsed since nasal polypectomy, is disqualifying."
"Current diseases of sebaceous glands to include severe acne, if extensive involvement of the neck, shoulders, chest, or back is present or would be aggravated by or interfere with the proper wearing of military equipment, are disqualifying . Applicants under treatment with system icretinoids, including, Accutane(r) are disqualified until 8 (eight) weeks after completion of therapy."
"Current orthodontic appliances for continued treatment are disqualifying."
Gosh, if braces on your teeth can keep you out, what chance does a transperson have?
That's my point. It's fine that they want everyone to meet health and safety requirements, but some of these regulations are over the top and unnecessary. I think it's a little archaic and disqualifies too many people from serving that would otherwise perform well in the military. By the way, I'm not even referring to transgender people as I do realize it's a complex situation due to the fact that those who are transitioning need medical care. After thinking about it further, I can see the purpose for certain policies even if I find them to be inconvenient.
Penis amputation or lack of one or both testicles is not going keep you from joining the military. One of my friends went through the officer candidate school and graduated and is now a 1st Liutenant and he had his penis amputated due to necrosis when he was 14. Also there's a couple people in my unit missing a testicle and one who lost both in the field of duty. If you can pass your APFT (army physical fitness test) they make exceptions. Also a drill sergeant while I was in boot camp had his right arm blown off at the elbow by a short fuse grenade and he obviously they let him stay in. I read an article once as well of a captain that went blind and was allowed to stay in command of his company.
Usually to enlist, you need a clean bill of health and no physical or mental abnormalities. Usually anyway, the genital thing though I can vouch for by personal experience doesn't seem to matter as long as you're able to meet the fitness requirements.
And yeah my point was laid out perfectly there why the military wont allow a person to transition while in service. First thing you're taught in boot camp, you're a rifleman first, a cook or whatever second, and we can't have transitioning people on the battlefield.
I still fail to understand though why a person can't simply be trans and wait till their term of service is over to transition. That there is right next to discrimination of sexual orientation which is no longer an issue.
Quote from: learningtolive on August 30, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
That's my point. It's fine that they want everyone to meet health and safety requirements, but some of these regulations are over the top and unnecessary.
Most things you can get waivers for. I had a one-balled shipmate
Quote from: Jasriella on August 30, 2013, 11:02:03 PM
Penis amputation or lack of one or both testicles is not going keep you from joining the military. One of my friends went through the officer candidate school and graduated and is now a 1st Liutenant and he had his penis amputated due to necrosis when he was 14. Also there's a couple people in my unit missing a testicle and one who lost both in the field of duty. If you can pass your APFT (army physical fitness test) they make exceptions. Also a drill sergeant while I was in boot camp had his right arm blown off at the elbow by a short fuse grenade and he obviously they let him stay in. I read an article once as well of a captain that went blind and was allowed to stay in command of his company.
Usually to enlist, you need a clean bill of health and no physical or mental abnormalities. Usually anyway, the genital thing though I can vouch for by personal experience doesn't seem to matter as long as you're able to meet the fitness requirements.
And yeah my point was laid out perfectly there why the military wont allow a person to transition while in service. First thing you're taught in boot camp, you're a rifleman first, a cook or whatever second, and we can't have transitioning people on the battlefield.
I still fail to understand though why a person can't simply be trans and wait till their term of service is over to transition. That there is right next to discrimination of sexual orientation which is no longer an issue.
The Captain you are referring to is Scott Smiley. He was blinded in an attack in Iraq.
http://fox8.com/2012/09/17/blind-army-captain-continues-to-serve/
We had a 7' beanpole that worked on the mess deck. We called him "Lurch". You can see his head in the works (pipes, ducts and cables) on the overhead (ceiling) as he walked. He had to bow often.
Joelene